[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 9 (Friday, January 13, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H520-H529]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR EXCEPTION TO LIMITATION AGAINST APPOINTMENT OF PERSONS AS 
   SECRETARY OF DEFENSE WITHIN SEVEN YEARS OF RELIEF FROM ACTIVE DUTY

  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 48, I call 
up the bill (S. 84) to provide for an exception to a limitation against 
appointment of persons as Secretary of Defense within seven years of 
relief from active duty as a regular commissioned officer of the Armed 
Forces and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 48, the bill is 
considered read.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                                 S. 84

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. EXCEPTION TO LIMITATION AGAINST APPOINTMENT OF 
                   PERSONS AS SECRETARY OF DEFENSE WITHIN SEVEN 
                   YEARS OF RELIEF FROM ACTIVE DUTY AS REGULAR 
                   COMMISSIONED OFFICERS OF THE ARMED FORCES.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding the second sentence of 
     section 113(a) of title 10, United States Code, the first 
     person appointed, by and with the advice and consent of the 
     Senate, as Secretary of Defense after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act may be a person who is, on the date of 
     appointment, within seven years after relief, but not within 
     three years after relief, from active duty as a commissioned 
     officer of a regular component of the Armed Forces.
       (b) Limited Exception.--This section applies only to the 
     first person appointed as Secretary of Defense as described 
     in subsection (a) after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act, and to no other person.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill shall be debatable for 90 minutes, 
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member 
of the Committee on Armed Services.

[[Page H521]]

  The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry) and the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Smith) each will control 45 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.


                             General Leave

  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
and insert extraneous material on S. 84.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me get right to the heart of the matter. We have to 
pass this legislation in order for James N. Mattis to be able to serve 
as Secretary of Defense. I know of no one more respected and more 
admired in the field of national security today than General Mattis. It 
is true that this is an extraordinary thing we are doing to pass a new 
law to provide a onetime exception to an underlying law so that a 
particular individual can serve. The last time we did this was 67 years 
ago.
  Our predecessors then faced challenging times and believed it was 
appropriate to go through extraordinary lengths to allow an exceptional 
individual, George C. Marshall, to serve as Secretary of Defense. 
History reveals that it was fortuitous that they chose to do so.
  We face challenging times today. We live in an increasingly dangerous 
world, and we confront it with a military that has been significantly 
damaged by budget cuts and other actions. I believe it is appropriate--
in fact, I believe it is necessary--for us to rise to meet the 
challenges of our time as our predecessors did in theirs and allow an 
exceptional leader to once again serve our country.
  Now, there are legitimate complaints about the wording of the 
resolution, about various procedural flaws, and about not exempting 
General Mattis from the UCMJ. In that regard, let me correct something 
I said before the Rules Committee last night. A retired officer can be 
held accountable for acts after they retire, although never has that 
happened to someone in civilian office. But there are legitimate 
complaints about the President-elect's transition team refusing to 
allow General Mattis to come to a hearing and testify before the House 
even though he was very eager to do so himself.
  I share all of those concerns. I think it was a mistake and 
shortsighted to deny the House the opportunity to question General 
Mattis on the issues related to this legislative exception. I think it 
was an opportunity to facilitate giving him a large, bipartisan vote 
out of this House which reflects the overwhelming bipartisan support 
that he has in this House.
  But getting back to the bottom line, even with those concerns, we 
have a responsibility to the men and women who serve, and I think we 
have a responsibility for the safety and security of every American to 
see that there is a fully functional Secretary of Defense on day one of 
the new administration. The only way we can do that is to pass this 
legislation today.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to thank the chairman, and I want 
to thank the members of the Armed Services Committee. I think we had a 
very excellent debate on this issue yesterday in committee. A lot of 
very well thought-out opinions on both sides were expressed in a 
respectful way.
  I also want to thank the chairman because the second that it was said 
that General Mattis was going to be the President-elect's selection for 
Secretary of Defense, he joined me in saying that we wanted General 
Mattis to appear before our committee to answer our questions. This is 
something that has only happened twice, and the first time in 67 years; 
and our committee members wanted the opportunity to do our job as the 
House Armed Services Committee and hear from the nominee about how he 
felt about the civilian control of the military, which is the reason 
that this law was put in place back in 1947. So I thank the chairman 
for that. Unfortunately, it didn't happen.
  The one thing I would correct, we do have to pass this piece of 
legislation in order for General Mattis to become the Secretary of 
Defense. We do not have to do it now. I will explain more on how we can 
do that in just a second. But the problem of where we are at right now 
because of the actions of the transition team, we basically, certainly 
on the House Armed Services Committee and, to some extent, in the full 
House, are being treated as irrelevant.
  It was mentioned during our committee that General Mattis received an 
81-17 vote on this legislation in the Senate. That is true, it was 
bipartisan. He appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee. The 
Senate Armed Services Committee was given the respect to do their job, 
and they heard him, and they asked him questions. It didn't take very 
long. He was done by 12:30, and they voted. That didn't happen for us.
  Really, it is sort of a two-step process in which the legislative 
branch--in this case, the House--was basically ignored and treated as 
irrelevant. First was in the continuing resolution that we passed to 
keep the government open where, with guidance from the transition team, 
they insisted on very specific language in the CR to set it up so that 
General Mattis could be confirmed, and that was stuck into the CR. Now, 
we, on the Democratic side objected to a couple of things in that at 
the time, but those objections were ignored, and it was put in, and we 
were not prepared to shut down the government over this issue since it 
was put into the CR.
  The chairman has mentioned one of the problems with it, and the 
biggest one, and that is in the past, in the case of General Marshall, 
they exempted him from this provision that retired officers are subject 
to the UCMJ. They did not exempt General Mattis. When we are talking 
about civilian control of the military, if you have a retired military 
officer who is still subject to military law, that, without question, 
blurs the line between his being a military officer and his being a 
civilian. It is something we easily could have fixed. But the way they 
wrote it into the CR there was no way for us to do that.

  Then, second, and more--I can't think of the right word--second and 
worse, let's just put it that way, as we said, we agreed. We were going 
to have General Mattis come and talk to us. Both the chairman and I 
spoke to General Mattis on the phone. He was very anxious to come 
testify. In fact, 3 days ago, we noticed in our committee that we were 
going to have a public hearing with General Mattis before us answering 
our questions and addressing whatever concerns we might have. Then, the 
next day, 24 hours before he was supposed to appear, the transition 
team--and as I was led to believe, it was some low-level person on the 
transition team--said: Nah, we are not going to let him come.
  Reporters have asked me many times: Why did the transition team do 
that? The best answer to that question is because they could, because 
they just really didn't feel like it. Some people have said: Well, it 
would be a lot of effort, a lot of work.
  Like I said, General Mattis testified before the Senate committee. 
Most of us watched it on television. He was done at 12:30. We were 
scheduled to have him at 2:30. He could have had a nice lunch, walked 
over to the House, sat down for an hour, and the House Armed Services 
Committee could have been permitted to do its job.
  The reason this is important--and I have heard for 8 years endless 
complaints from the Republican side of the aisle about how President 
Obama has ignored the legislative branch, how executive authority is 
making irrelevant the people's House, and how wrong that was. On a 
number of occasions I've actually agreed with them. I think that has 
happened.
  But here we are before this President is even in office, at the very 
first opportunity, he is choosing to completely ignore us for no 
reason. You cannot tell me that General Mattis couldn't handle an hour-
and-a-half's worth of questioning in the House Armed Services 
Committee. He has done it before countless times.
  So what we can do and what I think we should do, what I think we 
should

[[Page H522]]

have done at the time when the transition team called up and said that, 
is we should have said: Okay. We appreciate your opinion, but you need 
us to pass this law in order for General Mattis to be Secretary of 
Defense. We have been told that he is going to appear before our 
committee. We have told our members of the committee and everybody else 
that he is going to appear; and until he does, we are not going to pass 
that law.
  Now, I am of the opinion that if we had said that, if we had shown 
some backbone and stood up for what is our right as the legislative 
body, that all of a sudden General Mattis would have been available and 
we could have avoided all of this.
  Even today, I submit that if we defeat this bill on the floor, we 
couldn't get him in by January 20. I grant you that. But we are back 
January 23 and 24. We were scheduled to be here January 25. I gather 
that got canceled because the Republican retreat is going to be a bit 
longer than expected.

                              {time}  1400

  But we could certainly take that day back. We could wait 3 or 4 days, 
which I don't think would be the end of the world, and assert our 
authority as the legislative branch. Because, let me tell you 
something, if we set this precedent now, if you think President Obama 
exercised executive authority in a highhanded way, ignoring the 
legislative branch, there is every indication that President-elect 
Trump is going to have an even greater approach in that direction. So 
if we don't stand up for ourselves now, we are going to be rolled over 
countlessly.
  We all want to support General Mattis. We want that bipartisan vote. 
The way to get that bipartisan vote is to do what we said we were going 
to do, have him come before the Armed Services Committee and simply 
address the issue we want to raise. That is why I would ask this body 
to reject this motion now, so that we can actually have the Armed 
Services Committee do its job.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Wilson).
  Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Mac 
Thornberry for yielding. I appreciate the gentleman's positive 
leadership as chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.
  I am grateful to endorse this selection of General Jim Mattis for 
Secretary of Defense and, based on his extraordinary background, 
believe a waiver is appropriate. General Mattis' recent experience in 
the Middle East makes him uniquely qualified to address the threats to 
servicemembers overseas and American families at home. I am confident 
that, through his position, General Mattis will continue the great 
traditions of civilian control of the military, delivering peace 
through strength.
  My personal perspective of appreciation of General Mattis is as the 
grateful son of a World War II Flying Tiger who served in India and 
China, as the son-in-law of a Marine who received the Navy Cross for 
Okinawa service, as a 31-year veteran myself of the Army Reserve and 
Army National Guard, with four sons who have served in the military, as 
Army Field Artillery in Iraq, as a Navy doctor in Iraq and Italy, as a 
signal officer in Egypt, as an engineer in Afghanistan, and with an Air 
Force nephew serving in Iraq.
  In his testimony before the Senate yesterday reaffirming the European 
Reassurance Initiative from the Baltics to Bulgaria, General Mattis 
spoke bluntly about the readiness crisis facing our military, and we 
are eager to work with him on the critical task of rebuilding our 
national defense to promote peace through strength.
  Simultaneously, bipartisan endorsements, to me personally, from his 
fellow Marines confirm he is the right person at the right time.
  General Mattis' swift confirmation is crucial to continuity for our 
ongoing military operations and protecting American families. I urge my 
colleagues to support the waiver for General Mattis.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. McEachin).
  Mr. McEACHIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, every one of us in this body was elected to serve and 
represent the people of our districts. Doing our jobs means fairly and 
fully considering the legislation that comes before us. If we pass this 
measure, we will have failed to meet that incredible responsibility.
  Our democracy depends, in part, on civilian control of the military. 
If we are going to appoint a recently retired general as the new 
Secretary of Defense, that decision calls for careful deliberation and 
informed debate.
  Mr. Speaker, I hear nothing but good things about General Mattis, but 
the good people of the Fourth Congressional District of Virginia didn't 
hire me to take someone else's word for it. If we are going to waive 
this law that has been on the books for oh so many years, Members of 
this body deserve the opportunity to ask General Mattis questions, to 
hear his answers, and to weigh his views.
  Unlike our colleagues in the Senate, Members of this body did not 
have the opportunity to have a full committee hearing with General 
Mattis. For that reason, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Turner).
  Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, the United States and our allies currently 
face some of the most complex security challenges in our recent 
history. ISIS continues to sweep across much of the Middle East. An 
expansionist China continues to develop its military prowess in order 
to counter the United States and its allies in the region. We continue 
to face a nuclear threat posed by countries such as North Korea and 
Iran; and an increasingly hostile Russia seeks to destabilize much of 
Europe.
  It is imperative that the Department of Defense not lose continuity 
in leadership, administration, and governance. General Mattis must be 
confirmed expeditiously. Such a lapse would create vulnerabilities in 
our national security strategy and would be detrimental to the safety 
and security of our Armed Forces.
  Civilian control of military is undoubtedly crucial to the success 
and health of our Defense Department. This candidate's military 
experience alone should not bar him from serving in a civilian role as 
the Secretary of Defense. It actually enhances the capabilities he 
brings to the job. This is a unique exception for a candidate whose 
exemplary leadership and experience would come at a crucial time for 
our country and for our men and women in uniform.
  I understand that many of our colleagues across the aisle are 
choosing to vote against a waiver for General Mattis, despite the fact 
that they support General Mattis himself as an eminently qualified 
nominee for the Secretary of Defense. That is a mistake. To do so is 
self-defeating.
  Under these circumstances, a vote against the process by which 
General Mattis is nominated is, in fact, a vote against General Mattis 
himself from becoming our next Secretary of Defense.
  I thank Chairman Thornberry for his leadership throughout these 
important deliberations and for his work for obtaining this waiver for 
General Mattis and for the future of the service of General Mattis to 
our country.
  I urge our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support S. 84.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis).
  Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I opposed similar legislation 
in a markup yesterday, and I cannot support it today. My concerns are 
not with the exceptional qualifications and decades of honorable 
service of General Mattis, but I am opposed to a process that has made 
this House irrelevant.
  We have an obligation under the law to review this nomination based 
on General Mattis' military service, a law that codified the principle 
of civilian control of the military. General Mattis agreed, and was 
even eager, according to the chairman, to speak before the Armed 
Services Committee.
  The people have the right to know that the Presidential transition 
team blocked him from appearing. The American people, frankly, don't 
care

[[Page H523]]

what unelected members of the transition team think and would much 
rather hear from General Mattis on why we in the House should grant 
this exception to law.
  His testimony would be in all of our best interest. General Mattis 
could certainly start the new relationship that he has with the House 
Armed Services Committee, with our committee, through a thoughtful and 
a productive conversation on the issues.
  Today we are casting off our duty and agreeing to be irrelevant. To 
accept this legislation without making the appropriate changes, without 
fully participating in this legislative process, under a closed rule, 
we are doing nothing to safeguard civilian control of our military. In 
fact, we are accepting poorly drafted language, and we are not 
performing proper oversight.
  Why are we doing that?
  Because the President-elect's transition team said so.
  My colleagues have said that there is no requirement that General 
Mattis speak before us, but I want to say to them: Why cede our power 
to the Senate? Both houses of Congress have a duty here. Why let a 
nascent administration push us and a distinguished general around?
  I will not roll over and allow the transition team to dictate the 
charge of the people's House. We can fix this, Mr. Speaker, and we 
should.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Rogers).
  Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of 
the rule and passage of H.R. 393, to allow retired General James Mattis 
to become our Nation's 26th Secretary of Defense.
  First of all, I would like to say that I believe civilian control 
over our military is one of the pivotal principles of our Republic. 
This body must ensure that our military leaders remain accountable to 
civilian authorities lest we put our hard-won liberties at risk.
  That is why, before I decided to vote for this waiver, I had to 
answer two very important questions. First, does the appointment of 
James Mattis present any threat at all to the concept of civilian 
control of our military?
  The answer is clearly no. James Mattis has demonstrated his openness 
as a straight shooter throughout his long career. I am confident he 
will continue to candidly face the problems in the Department of 
Defense and be a positive force for change.
  It is James Mattis' record of reform-minded openness, his scholarly 
understanding of history and military matters, and his almost 4-year 
separation from defense interests, that assures me that this waiver, as 
a unique measure, poses no risk to civilian control of the military.
  The second question, then: Is the appointment of James Mattis worth 
waiving the 7-year requirement?
  The answer is clearly yes. The United States Armed Forces are at a 
pivotal moment in their history. After 8 years of neglect under this 
administration, our military has been brought to its lowest point in 
the past 4 decades.
  James Mattis has the experience, knowledge, and leadership skills to 
rally the services while they rebuild for the next 4 decades. He will 
start on day one with a strong grasp of the challenges facing our 
military and with the ideas to meet those challenges. That is why I 
support this one-time waiver, which will allow James Mattis to serve as 
our Nation's 26th Secretary of Defense.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Rosen).
  Ms. ROSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation.
  In the aftermath of World War II, leaders from both parties, who many 
in this House revere to this day, developed the principle of civilian 
control of our Armed Forces and codified it into law. They had seen the 
rise of fascism and communism, and held this principle dear because 
they believed it was necessary for the safety of our democracy. It was 
the outgrowth of a long tradition of thinking about civil-military 
relations, as old as our Republic itself, going back to the Founders.
  Yet, almost all of these same leaders and legislators made an 
exception for General George Marshall; but when they did so, they did 
not take the action lightly. The exception in 1950 did a number of 
things that this legislation does not, which my colleagues have spoken 
about. All are serious, but I want to highlight one.
  The exception in 1950 named General Marshall by name and applied the 
exception only to him. This bill does not name General Mattis, and it 
is written more broadly. The principle of civilian control of the Armed 
Forces was important to the Greatest Generation and it was an exception 
in every sense, an exception for an exceptional individual.

  This matter should not be rammed through Congress. There are serious 
issues to discuss. I believe civil-military relations remain vitally 
important to the American people and to the health of our democracy.
  I believe that General Mattis is an excellent general officer. He has 
served our Nation well, and he will be a capable Secretary of Defense. 
My opposition to this legislation is not about General Mattis' capacity 
to serve in this role.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask: Why is this legislation written so that it could 
apply to other individuals and does not name General Mattis and state 
that this is only for him?
  We are being asked to rush, without conducting proper oversight, 
without holding a hearing, and after being prevented by an unelected 
transition team to hear from General Mattis himself.
  This is the people's House. The House should have a proper hearing 
before a decision of this magnitude is made. General Mattis should have 
been allowed to testify before our committee, as I am told was his 
desire. If today's legislation addressed these concerns, which could 
have been achieved, my vote would likely be different today.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 
seconds.
  Ms. ROSEN. But I cannot, given this process and this language, vote 
for this legislation today in good conscience.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Wittman).
  Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 84, a bill that 
would allow for General James Mattis to be considered for an 
appointment as the 26th Secretary of Defense of the United States.
  Leading up to this vote, I have heard time and time again from my 
colleagues that they respect General Mattis' service to our country. I 
have also heard that they understand him to be an intelligent, capable 
leader. Some have even gone so far as to say he is a military hero. I 
don't doubt the sincerity of my colleagues' words. In fact, I echo 
them.
  But for some of my colleagues, this praise for General Mattis is 
followed by what I believe is a flawed line of thinking. I have heard 
the argument that this vote we have before us today is not about 
General Mattis.
  My friends, today's vote is clearly about General Mattis. Make no 
mistake, a ``yes'' vote today will not permanently change the 
requirements prohibiting the appointment of anyone inside of 7 years of 
Active Duty service.

                              {time}  1415

  This vote will provide a one-time-only exception for General Mattis, 
a man of the utmost character.
  The original intent of this law was to prevent an Active-Duty 
servicemember from retiring and then becoming Secretary of Defense 
within the same Presidential administration. With President-elect Trump 
raising his right hand in 7 days, it is clear that General Mattis does 
not violate the law's original intent. The fact that we are here to 
deliberate this issue only proves that the nomination and appointment 
process works.
  I am encouraged that we are having this debate today. But at the end 
of the day, we should not deny the best candidate to become the 
Secretary of Defense.
  A vote of ``no'' is a vote against General James Mattis. I urge my 
fellow colleagues to join me in voting in favor of an exception for an 
exceptional American, General James Mattis.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  This is not a vote against General Mattis. I think I made that very, 
very clear. I think it is very important that

[[Page H524]]

the House have the opportunity to hear from him, as we said we were 
going to do.
  Now, yes, he has appeared before the Senate. But, as all of us on the 
Armed Services Committee know, after the transition is over and the new 
Secretary of Defense is in place, one of the first things they do is 
come up and report the budget to us. The Secretary of Defense and the 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staffs will come up. They go to the 
Senate, too.
  Are we just going to say we can watch the television? Why does he 
need to go to both places? Why would we bother to have him come all the 
way over to the House and have our members have the opportunity to ask 
him questions? I don't want to set that precedent.
  So, as passionate as the previous speaker was, please understand--and 
I have expressed this directly to General Mattis--this is not a vote 
against General Mattis. In fact, I have said: if we have the 
opportunity to do our job as the House Armed Services Committee, if we 
simply do not roll over for the transition team, we would be more than 
happy to support General Mattis in a bipartisan way. We have plenty of 
time to do this right, instead of doing it in the rushed way that 
disregards the power and importance of the House Armed Services 
Committee.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Hunter).
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 84.
  Here is what I think this is about. We feel slighted. We in Congress 
feel slighted that the Trump administration did not deign to have 
General Mattis come and speak to us, the House, which is not required 
by any law, not required by any statute. We feel slighted.
  I do feel the same way that the ranking member feels, in terms of how 
the administration is treating the House of Representatives and this 
body.
  But it is times like this where we need to rise above the slights 
from the future Trump administration. I think there are going to be a 
few more. I think this future administration does not hold this body in 
the highest regard. That is going to become evident over the next 4 
years.
  I think we are going to have to take things like that as a body and 
do what is best for this Nation. That is why they argue with the 
process and that the House was slighted by the future President. I 
understand it. I feel that as well. But it is time for us to say: hey, 
we need to be above that. This is about the future of our Nation, it is 
about our men and women who are serving in conflict right now, under 
fire, and they need General Mattis as their Secretary of Defense.
  For those who assert that the Marshall prohibition, which bars, in 
the absence of a waiver, a general from becoming Secretary of Defense, 
a glance at the operational chain of command is in order.
  Under the U.S. Constitution and statute, the command of the Armed 
Forces flows from the President to the Secretary of Defense to the 
combatant commanders around the world. The idea that a link in the 
chain of commanding operations--namely, the Secretary of Defense--
cannot be a military leader is nonsensical. General Mattis will bring 
insight to a job that no background in academia or business could ever 
provide.
  Lastly, when I met General Mattis for the very first time, I was 
going to Iraq from Kuwait. We got ambushed by machine gun. I got shot 
in the arm. He drops into my Humvee. We pull out of the ambush area.
  My convoy gets up to Dewaniya where Jim Mattis is. I had never met 
him. I had heard of him a little bit. I was a lieutenant in the Marine 
Corps. I didn't know much about much at that point. There is General 
Mattis in the operation center.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 
seconds.
  Mr. HUNTER. He turns to me and he says: Lieutenant Hunter, good to 
see you. I said: good to see you, sir. I was already sweating and 
shaking, speaking to a one-star general officer. For a lieutenant, that 
could be very trying.
  He said: Did you kill him? I said: Kill who, sir? He said: the guys 
who ambushed you. I said: no, sir. We followed procedure and drove out 
of the ambush area. He said: next time, son, you need to kill them.
  Hearts of every single man and woman in the U.S. Armed Forces will be 
filled with pride when John Mattis is sworn in as the next Secretary of 
Defense.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  I have an enormous amount of respect for the gentleman from 
California. I have enjoyed traveling with him to Afghanistan and 
elsewhere.
  I think what he said in the first part of his remarks was, basically, 
the Trump administration is going to ignore us, and we just need to get 
used it. That is not my interpretation of our jobs. I think we were 
elected as well, particularly on the Armed Services Committee, and, in 
our elections, we even got more votes than our opponents. That is how 
we were able to get here.

  So I don't think we should simply roll over for the Trump 
administration because that is the way he is likely to behave.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Coffman).
  Mr. COFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 84.
  If we look back at the origin of this 1947 law in the aftermath of 
World War II, it was really written to require, I think at that time, 
10 years of separation between anybody who had served in the military 
and then serving as a Secretary of Defense. I think one of the core 
reasons for that is the fact of would there, in fact, be a bias between 
that military officer and their branch of service.
  I think when we look at General Mattis and this waiver, that is 
certainly not the case. He was the combat and commander for Joint 
Forces Command when it was standing. The purpose of Joint Forces 
Command was to integrate our military together in terms of jointness. 
He was very successful at that. So that bias is not going to be there.
  In the State of Colorado, he came out about a year ago to speak 
before the University of Colorado Denver to our veterans' association. 
I will never forget those young marines and soldiers who had served 
under him in combat, those junior enlisted, and how they looked up to 
him in a way I have never seen junior enlisted look up, in my time in 
the Army and Marine Corps, to a flag officer in the same way.
  So I think he is going to be such an extraordinary asset to the 
national security of this country, and I am proud to rise in support of 
S. 84.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Khanna), a new member of the Armed 
Services Committee.
  Mr. KHANNA. Mr. Speaker, I want to say what an honor it is to be on 
this Committee with Chairman Thornberry and Ranking Member Smith and 
their leadership. When I joined, I was told this was one of the only 
bipartisan committees in the House. While we had a disagreement--and I 
associate myself with Ranking Member Smith's remarks--I will say that, 
to me, the debate seemed civil. It seemed genuine on philosophical and 
constitutional principles. I am hopeful that, after this debate, we 
will be able to work in a bipartisan way.
  I know General Mattis was out in Silicon Valley. He has tremendous 
respect in the Valley for dealing with issues of cybersecurity and the 
future of the military. I think some of those ideas can help our 
troops. I look forward to working on the Committee to support those 
initiatives.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler).
  Mrs. HARTZLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as an advocate for the 
United States military and the selfless men and women who fill its 
ranks.
  While I fully appreciate the points that my colleagues are making, 
this is an extraordinary time as we consider this legislation and an 
extraordinary man about whom we are talking.
  In just 1 week, our Nation will have its new President. Precedent 
tells us

[[Page H525]]

that we should also have the President's Secretary of Defense to step 
in and assume control of the Department of Defense that day, as well. 
Our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines must have their 
organization's leader in position. That clear and steady leadership is 
crucial when lives are on the line.
  The state of our military's readiness, under the current 
administration, also merits mentioning within this discussion. Troop 
OPTEMPO rates are dangerously high and retention rate is low. Our 
aircraft are unreliably old and many maintainers are inexperienced and 
new. Never before have there been such extraordinary challenges to the 
manning, training, and equipping of our forces with limited resources.
  We ask our troops to stand ready to and actively fight against a 
resurgent Russia, emergent China, unstable North Korea, unpredictable 
Iran, and widespread violent terrorism. Never before has there been 
such an extraordinary demand on our men and women in uniform.
  These are extraordinary times with extraordinary circumstances. 
General Mattis is the extraordinary man who will lead the Department of 
Defense in the direction it so desperately needs.
  For this reason, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this 
measure.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Wenstrup).
  Mr. WENSTRUP. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of providing a 
waiver permitting the nomination of General James Mattis to the Office 
of Secretary of Defense.
  General Mattis is an exceptional warrior, strategist, and leader. At 
a time in which the United States faces an increasingly diverse array 
of threats around the globe, his unique skill set and decades of 
experience render him worthy of this exceptional legislation.
  Civilian control of the military is a foundational underpinning of 
our system of government, and it is one of General Mattis' nomination 
strengths, not weaknesses.
  Just as every one is a civilian before they join the military, they 
return to civilian life when they leave it. Since becoming a civilian 
3\1/2\ years ago, General Mattis has thoughtfully analyzed the 
civilian-military relationship, coediting an analysis of the state of 
civilian-military relations today. This work includes recommendations 
that aim to, in his words: ``Ensure our military are braided tightly to 
our broader society in a manner that will keep alive our experiment in 
democracy.''
  Throughout his distinguished career, General Mattis has demonstrated 
a mastery of all aspects of American leadership on the global stage. He 
has a keen grasp of the value of diplomacy and has been a strong 
supporter of the State Department and its valuable mission.
  Throughout his decades of service, he has accumulated a deep 
understanding of the importance of deterrence and how a well-guarded 
peace can prevent conflict before it begins. As a seasoned strategic 
thinker, he has been an incisive critic of current and serious, long-
term planning for American national security that hasn't really 
existed.
  General Mattis knows firsthand the reality of combat and the stakes 
involved in any decision to use military force. The United States needs 
a Secretary of Defense equipped to use every tool necessary to defend 
our Nation and defeat our adversaries.
  Because of General Mattis' unique capabilities to address the 
multitude of threats our country faces today, I urge all my colleagues 
to support this legislation.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I would just point out that, 
because of the way this law is written, General Mattis actually will 
not be going back to civilian life after he leaves. He is still subject 
to the UCMJ and, therefore, is still, in some ways, a military officer 
while he will be the ``civilian head'' of the Defense Department.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentleman specifically for a clarity on 
the status of General Mattis as the legislation is written.
  I think it is important, Mr. Speaker, that all of us who stand make 
sure the American people know of our greatest respect and honor for 
General Mattis. His history of service to this Nation, his tactical 
expertise, and his ability to acknowledge the constitutional 
underpinnings of which this Nation is based is without question. But we 
have, as my colleagues have said on the other side of the aisle, a very 
serious moment in history.
  In the public domain is a conspicuous intrusion of Russia and the 
election of 2016. There is also knowledge of other areas of which they 
have used the cyber system for cyber warfare.
  The talent of military persons is welcome, but that is the strength 
of this Nation: that we don't yield and bend this little book called 
the Constitution, which has, as I indicated, its essence being that our 
Nation is governed by the civilian population under principles of 
democracy and equality, the recognition of the three branches of 
government, and the separation of our military and civilian operation.

                              {time}  1430

  This waiver is extraordinary. This waiver, I believe, undermines the 
very sense of the freedom of our military, its ability to counsel as a 
separate entity, and it undermines, again, the idea that in 1947 our 
Congress decided to acknowledge and only waived to General Marshall 
because of the potential concern and catastrophe of the Korean 
conflict, now Korean war. It has not been done since.
  So I would ask my colleagues whether or not we are going to bend--not 
bend the arc toward justice and recognition of the Constitution, but 
bend at any moment of convenience. I do not believe that this is a time 
in history to bend for convenience.
  I believe General Mattis would agree, with his very fine record, that 
civilian control of the government should be superior and raise the 
question himself, if asked, whether or not this waiver is for this time 
and for now and whether or not we are in such a moment of history that 
that waiver needs to be granted. My view is that it does not. My view 
is that we should, in essence, adhere to the regularness of 
constitutional premise and also to recognize the well-established 
separation of civilian and military.
  At this time, I want to thank General Mattis for his service, and I 
would argue that this resolution should receive a ``no'' vote from our 
colleagues in the United States House of Representatives.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to S. 84, which provides an 
exception to a limitation against appointment of persons as Secretary 
of Defense within seven years of relief from active duty as a regular 
commissioned officer of the Armed Forces so that the President-Elect 
can nominate Gen. James Mattis to serve as the next Secretary of 
Defense.
  Gen. Mattis retired from active duty in 2013, which under current 
law, makes him ineligible for appointment as Secretary of Defense.
  Civilian control of the military has been a bedrock principle of our 
democracy since the founding of the Republic.
  That principle has served the nation well and there is no reason to 
depart from from 66 years of precedent in strictly protecting the 
American principle of civilian control over the military.
  Indeed, in the history of the Department of Defense, the only Defense 
Secretary ever given a waiver was then-Secretary of State, General 
George Marshall--who was provided an individual waiver in 1950 at the 
height of the Korean War in a stand-alone bill approved by the 
Congress.
  It is not the service of the individual nominated or his or her 
fitness to serve that is in question, but the dangerous precedent that 
would be set by entrusting leadership of the Department of Defense to a 
retired military person whose active duty military experiences have not 
been moderated by the tempering effect of life in the civil sector.
  I urge all Members to join me in voting against S. 84.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Byrne).
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I support this legislation in order to ensure 
General James Mattis can become the next United States Secretary of 
Defense. It is critically important to our military men and women as 
well as to the safety and security of the American people that the 
Trump administration has a capable, competent Secretary of Defense in 
place on January 20.
  Our soldiers, sailors, and airmen need to know who their leader is, 
and we

[[Page H526]]

should do everything we can to minimize any gap in leadership. General 
Mattis is uniquely qualified for this vital role, and his nomination 
has earned praise from both Democrats and Republicans, as shown by the 
vote yesterday in the United States Senate.
  During his over 40 years of service to our country, he has 
consistently shown both a great appreciation for the true toils of 
conflict and the clear ability to defeat an enemy. That is an important 
balance for anyone leading our military.
  Now, I know some of my colleagues on the other side have concerns 
about the process, but let's not get caught up in a process fight when 
it comes to the safety and security of the American people. The 
fundamental question should be: Do you or do you not support General 
Mattis serving as our Secretary of Defense?
  Now, when I found out General Mattis would not be appearing before 
our committee, of course I was disappointed, but I pulled out my copy 
of ``Meditations'' by the great Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius, which is 
his favorite book. He carries it with him everywhere. If you read those 
meditations, you know where they were written. They were written on the 
northern frontier of the Roman Empire where the Emperor General Marcus 
Aurelius spent several years to be with his legionnaires as they fought 
against the enemy across the line of the Rhine. In those meditations he 
talks about the importance of humility.
  Any general who reads the ``Meditations'' of Marcus Aurelius 
consistently so that he can remember that his duty is to his soldiers 
and to a humility before the power that he has is someone who should be 
leading the Department of Defense of the United States. I have great 
confidence that he knows that the strength of our military lies in the 
men and women who fight for us.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation to help 
pave the way for General Mattis to lead our military and protect the 
safety and the security of the American people.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Russell).
  Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. Speaker, what is it that objectors are truly afraid 
of? We hear the words ``civilian control of the military'' as if 
somehow those American citizens who have borne the brunt of service or 
battle are somehow no longer entitled to their citizenship, forever 
imprinted with some mark of Cain.
  What are opponents trying to say? Is it: We are afraid of the warrior 
class. We are afraid they might cause a war? American battle-hardened 
warriors understand the need to prevent human suffering, the chaos of 
destroyed communities, the loss of order, the lack of public services, 
and carnage caused by weapons, disease, or hopelessness. My own 
observation is that the greatest saber rattling often seems to occur 
from bloviating politicians who have never borne the sword.
  What are opponents trying to say? Is it: We are afraid they might 
take over the government? Well, if there was ever an opportunity for 
that concern, it was in the 1790s. President George Washington, a 
general, was revered. He had appointed to his Cabinet five generals and 
a couple of colonels. If there was ever a time for a military takeover 
of the United States, it was then. Instead, George Washington 
relinquished the most important, powerful position in the land. He, 
like all warriors, understood what it meant to serve their country.
  If you look at our own Secretaries of State, historically, nearly 
one-third had military service, with 10 obtaining senior rank. The 
parade of notable senior warriors serving as Secretary of State remind 
us that military leaders have often made the best foreign policy for 
our country. Why no such concerns about military takeover there? On 
observation, it appears as if America has a phobia of civilian control 
of diplomacy.
  General Mattis is a warrior who will put the national security and 
peace of the United States above all other concerns. He will do it with 
humility and continued selfless service. He needs to be waivered and 
confirmed immediately for the good of our country.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Kelly).
  Mr. KELLY of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the 
legislation that would allow General James Mattis to be allowed to 
serve as our Secretary of Defense.
  As Members of Congress, we are sworn to uphold the Constitution and 
defend our country against its enemies. In order to secure our national 
security, we must have a seamless transition from one administration to 
another when it comes to military leadership. I somehow wonder which 
other Cabinet appointees has the House questioned, and the answer is 
none.
  Although this requires a waiver, there is a Senate confirmation 
process that determines whether or not General James Mattis is the 
right person. I wish he would have testified in front of our committee, 
but there is no requirement that he testify in front of our committee. 
That is why we have the Senate. It is their duty to vet the candidates 
for these positions. It is their duty to confirm the candidates for 
each of the Cabinet positions, and no other member who is trying to be 
on the Cabinet has to come before the House and testify. I do wish 
General Mattis did because he would have excelled like he has done in 
every other thing he has done in his life.

  I have concerns about the legislation undermining civilian control, 
also; but I also, like Colonel Russell, think that there may not 
necessarily be the need for that. Even if there is, there is civilian 
control of the military. The President is Commander in Chief. The 
Secretary of Defense answers to the Commander in Chief, who is a 
civilian.
  Some people say interservice rivalry may be the reason that they want 
him to stay out for 7 years. I can assure you that 30 years from today 
General Mattis will be as much a marine as he is today, and 7 years or 
4 years or 10 years or 30 years will not prevent him from being a 
marine every day for the rest of his life as he was the days preceding 
it.
  Passing this legislation ensures that our military will have a leader 
on the day the President is sworn in.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentleman.
  Mr. KELLY of Mississippi. Like the Member who spoke before me--
General Grant served as Commander in Chief of the Union armies and 
later of all the Armies of the U.S. and then was President within 4 
years of having that title. General Eisenhower served as Supreme 
Commander and then served as President of the United States, the 
ultimate civilian authority. General Washington was also our first 
President.
  I ask that we pass this legislation and that we say yes to General 
Mattis.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds just 
to say, not to be a stickler for detail, but we are actually not giving 
a waiver here. We are changing the law, and that is what makes this 
appointment different. When you confirm someone to the Cabinet, the 
gentleman is absolutely right, the Senate, that is their authority. It 
is in the Constitution. We don't get involved in that. But when you are 
changing a law, the House has a say in that. It is the Senate and the 
House.
  This debate actually makes me even more strongly opposed to this bill 
as I continue to hear about: We just don't matter. The Senate has got 
it. Trump has got it. What do we need to do?
  We have a responsibility as the House, and when you are changing a 
law, it has to go through the Senate and the House.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Gallagher).
  Mr. GALLAGHER. Mr. Speaker, like every marine of my generation, 
during my time in the Corps I gained a profound respect for General Jim 
Mattis as simply the finest warrior that we have produced since Chesty 
Puller, and much has been made in the last few weeks about his war-
fighting prowess.
  What commands my respect, why I rise today, and what I believe binds

[[Page H527]]

Jim so closely to the hearts of everyone who has ever worn the uniform 
is his humility. General Mattis understands not only how to wield 
military power decisively but also its limits. General Mattis also 
realizes that the true source of our military strength doesn't come 
from the E-ring of the Pentagon but, rather, from the fighting spirit 
of the brave soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines that are deployed 
right now doing a very dangerous job.
  As the chairman mentioned, they deserve a Secretary of Defense on day 
one. With Jim Mattis as that Secretary, they will have a leader who 
always puts their welfare first and their mission first.
  Now, I respect the concerns of my colleagues about the longstanding 
principle of civilian control of the military, but I know Jim Mattis 
personally, and I know how seriously he holds this principle as well. 
When I deployed to Iraq in 2007 and again in 2008, it was the words of 
General Mattis that reminded us that, if we ever showed contempt for 
civilians, we would give the enemy a victory.
  So I say, for the mission's sake, for our country's sake, and the 
sake of men and women who have carried our colors in past battles, 
let's come together today in support of Jim Mattis and thereby send a 
signal to the world that there is once again no better friend, no worse 
enemy than the United States of America.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Nebraska (Mr. Bacon).
  Mr. BACON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 84 today to do this 
one-time exception so that we can have General Mattis as our next 
Secretary of Defense.
  Today our Nation is confronted with a complex array of transregional 
threats. We exist in one of the most dynamic and dangerous periods in 
our history, and this list of threats grow more vast and more 
dangerous. In the meantime, our military readiness is at dangerous lows 
and our modernization falls behind. Amidst these dangers, we are 
fortunate to be presented with a historic opportunity to select and 
elevate one of the most distinguished military leaders in our Nation's 
history to the position of Secretary of Defense.
  General Mattis is many things. He is an infantry marine, a decorated 
warrior, an experienced combat leader, and a respected commander who 
has fought our Nation's wars and knows firsthand the human costs of war 
and the consequences of operating unguided by strategy.
  James Mattis is also a strategic thinker who understands that true 
strength and security results from coordinated application of all 
elements of national power: our diplomatic influence, our economic 
wealth, our values, and, only when absolutely necessary, our military 
force.
  Mr. Speaker, not since George Marshall have we had a nominee whose 
distinguished military service record and mastery of operational art is 
matched by his intellectual prowess and grasp of strategy. One thing 
else is clear: not since General George Marshall have we needed this 
type of leader as our Secretary of Defense.
  We need a Secretary of Defense Mattis on day one of the Trump 
administration. A vote ``no'' means we won't have him on day one. It 
could be day 3 or day 30.
  Our men and women in uniform deserve General Mattis as their 
Secretary of Defense on day one. These are extraordinary times, and 
General Mattis is an extraordinary leader. We need him on day one. I 
urge support for the one-time exception.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Banks).

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. BANKS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support for 
granting a waiver for James Mattis continuing his distinguished service 
to our Nation as our next Secretary of Defense.
  We live in deeply troubling times as America's standing in the world 
and our military readiness have both deteriorated significantly over 
the past 8 years. Whether it is only one-third of the active Army's 
brigade combat teams being ready for combat, or Marines being forced to 
pull spare parts from museum aircraft to repair their F/A-18 Super 
Hornet fighter jets. These are not the marks of a ready force.
  This moment requires trusted leadership and someone with a genuine 
understanding of what is required of our brave men and women to stand 
ready when our Nation calls. There is no one better equipped to 
understand the dangers that we face, how to repair our world image, and 
set us on a path to rebuilding our military than President-elect 
Trump's nominee for Secretary of Defense, General James Mattis. General 
Mattis embodies all of the traits we should look for when selecting a 
Secretary of Defense.
  As a member of the Armed Services Committee, I look forward to 
working with him to put our military back on sure footing and help 
advance our Nation toward peace and stability.
  I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the measure.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus).
  Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this 
legislation.
  Civilian control of the military is a very important principle that 
has served our country well. Current law provides that there should be 
a 7-year gap between military service and serving as the Secretary of 
Defense. This is a general rule, but we know there are always 
exceptions to the rule. That is what this legislation makes today, 
clearing the path for a retired general who has been back in the 
civilian world for more than 3\1/2\ years.
  I support this exception because we live in exceptional times. Over 
the past 15 years, we have seen millions of American servicemembers 
deployed overseas. Thousands are still deployed. They have served well 
and served with courage. Many of them, and their families, have paid a 
particularly heavy price. More than 6,000 did not come home. Tens of 
thousands sustained life-changing injuries. Thousands have injuries we 
cannot see. Many families broke under the pressure of repeated 
deployments.
  Retired General James Mattis, now a civilian, has been there. He has 
been with these soldiers. He has been with these families. I appreciate 
the perspective General Mattis will bring to the Defense Department and 
President-elect's national security team. He understands more than most 
in a very personal way the gravity of putting our servicemembers in 
harm's way. He understands the moral obligation we have to ensure that 
those who are sent into harm's way are properly equipped. As important, 
he will be able to convey to his national security counterparts the 
impact decisions made in Washington have on the war fighter.
  General Mattis is the right person at the right time. I encourage my 
colleagues to support this waiver and vote for this legislation.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. DeSantis).
  Mr. DeSANTIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this measure.
  I think it is important to point out that when you talk about 
civilian control, General Mattis is, in fact, a civilian. He is not in 
command of any Marine divisions right now. I don't think prior military 
service should be held against him when he has the ability to offer 
additional service to the country.
  I hear this argument that: Well, he is a retired general, he is 
subject to the UCMJ. That is not an argument that has much merit. If 
that were the case, you couldn't have retired military officers serve 
in the Congress. If they were still considered military officers, it 
would violate the incompatibility clause of the Constitution.
  Now, this 7-year statutory restriction, I think it is understandable, 
but I don't think it is in any way sacrosanct. If you go back to the 
founding of our country, a 7-year restriction would have prevented 
George Washington from being the first civilian commander in chief 
because he had resigned his commission in 1784, he took

[[Page H528]]

the oath of office as our first President in 1789. Nobody was under any 
illusions that he was a civilian, and he was somebody who was revered.
  Now, it is true the Founders feared the civil being subordinate to 
the military, but that is because they thought Republican government 
could be overrun by a military junta. We don't have that danger here. 
We have a civilian President of the United States, a civilian Congress 
that is charged under the Constitution with providing and maintaining 
our Navy, with raising and supporting our armies, and prescribing rules 
for the regulation of the Armed Forces, and we will have Jim Mattis, 
who is a civilian, as a Secretary of Defense.
  This man, Jim Mattis, has been a faithful servant to our country. He 
is also a strategic thinker, who I think can do a great job in 
rebuilding our military and getting our national security policy on a 
firmer, stronger foundation.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Taylor).
  Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of General 
Mattis. I rise to speak to my colleagues, both Republican and Democrat. 
I rise to appeal to the unity of our Chamber, unity of our voice to the 
world, unity for our men and women who voluntarily fight on our behalf.

  Less than 1 percent of this Nation has gone forth for the past 15 
years, over and over, sacrificing their youth, time with their loved 
ones, and sometimes their lives. Imagine you are standing there next to 
your spouse, best friend, or battle buddy at attention, and a flag-
draped coffin passes you by, carried by an honor guard dressed in 
impeccable military uniform. Uncontrollable tears flow around the room 
as a ceremonial flag is tightly folded and presented to the stoic Gold 
Star family. ``Amazing Grace'' played on the bagpipes is at once the 
most beautiful and the most dreadful tone you have ever heard. You 
yearn to hear it again, and you never want to hear it again.
  Men and women like General Mattis, who have been here, understand the 
true costs of war. Men and women like General Mattis will think 
deliberately and carefully about putting the military into harm's way. 
Men and women like General Mattis will fight very hard to put the tools 
and the leadership in the hands of the military members so that they 
may win.
  Military members, perhaps more than our civilian counterparts, 
understand civilian control of the Armed Forces. For in every 
headquarters building that General Mattis or anyone else has served, 
there is a prominent display of pictures of civilian leadership above 
military commanders.
  I am not naive to the politics. I, too, believe he should have been 
here yesterday, but those opposed have made their point. We were 
divided yesterday, but we can unify today. I ask that you rise above 
politics. I ask you to support General Mattis not just with your words, 
but with your vote. I ask that you show the same unity military members 
show each other every single day. Let's give them a leader on day one.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I would inform the gentleman that I have 
no additional requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time 
in order to close.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of 
the time.
  I thank the folks for the debate. I think it has been very good, as 
it was in committee. But it is disturbing to hear this described as 
politics, or we feel slighted and we should rise above that. This isn't 
what this is about. It is about our exercising our constitutional 
authority as Members of the House and our constitutional authority as 
members of the Armed Services Committee. It is about us being relevant 
in the process and doing our jobs, as I said in the opening.
  Again, there is every opportunity to confirm and then also pass this 
change in the law that is necessary to make General Mattis the next 
Secretary of Defense. We can simply insist with the transition team 
that he appear before our committee. As I have pointed out, if we had 
done that in the first place, we could have met the January 20 
deadline; and even now we could still do it by January 23 or 24. I 
don't think a few days would make that big a difference compared to the 
institution of the House actually mattering.
  Now, I will say that, as I listened to the debate today, I become 
even a little bit more disturbed, as we have heard some of the 
reasoning behind supporting this change in the law to allow General 
Mattis to become the Secretary of Defense. As was said, basically, the 
Trump administration is going to do this kind of thing quite 
frequently, as one Member of the opposite party said, so we should just 
get used to it.
  I really do think that makes it all the more important at this point, 
at this moment, that we assert our authority. Again, we can do that and 
have a bipartisan vote and approve General Mattis. We just have to 
insist upon it instead of rolling over and accepting what the 
transition team has said. That was my original argument. I will not 
belabor it or restate it. I think it is compelling. I think we should 
stand up for our rights here in the House and on the Armed Services 
Committee.
  The final thing I will say is, while I have an enormous amount of 
respect for General Mattis--and like many who have spoken, I have not 
served in the armed services, I didn't work with him there, but I 
certainly have worked with him on the committee--I will point out that 
General Mattis is not God. As we listen to the people talk here about 
how we absolutely have to have somebody from the warrior class lead us 
in the military, that we have to have him in there in order to protect 
us from this dangerous world, that sort of language kind of makes me a 
little nervous.
  That is the point of civilian control of the military. We do not want 
to be run by the warrior class alone. Now, absolutely we have many 
Members on both sides of the aisle who have served in the military, and 
I think that is terrific. That perspective is enormously important. It 
is not the only perspective that is important to running a 
representative democracy. We have heard comparisons to the Roman 
Empire. Again, another analogy that is somewhat troubling. That is not 
what we want. But more than anything, what we don't want is we don't 
want a president who thinks that he can roll over the House Armed 
Services Committee and the entire House any time he feels like it, 
frankly, as in this case, for no reason.
  General Mattis, as everyone has admitted, was perfectly prepared to 
testify, perfectly prepared to come before us, and they simply decided 
not to send him. I don't think it was mere pettiness or anything like 
that. I have watched the way President-elect Trump conducts himself, 
and he is, shall we say, aggressive. I think they wanted to make it 
clear that they are going to be running things and that we better get 
the heck out of the way.
  Well, that is not what I was elected to do as a member of the House 
Armed Services Committee or a Member of the House. We are not here 
simply to get out of the way of President Obama or President-elect 
Trump. We are here to stand up for the people who elected us and for 
the country and to do our jobs. In this case, for no good reason, we 
were denied the ability to do that.
  So, again, I will urge Members to vote down this bill today so that 
we can assert our authority, hear from General Mattis, get him 
approved, go forward, but do it in a way that shows that the House of 
Representatives and the House Armed Services Committee actually matter. 
We cannot set the precedent that the President of the United States can 
simply ignore us on a whim.
  So I would urge us to vote ``no'' on this matter.
  I, again, thank the chairman for his leadership on this. We have 
worked very closely on this issue, amongst many others. To echo the 
comments of the freshman colleague from California, this is a very 
bipartisan committee. It will continue to be. We have done a bill for 
55 straight years, and I am hoping we will make it 56 this year. I look 
forward to working with Chairman Thornberry, all of the members of the 
committee, and all of the Members of the House to achieve that goal.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

[[Page H529]]

  

  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I completely agree that this is a bipartisan committee. 
Here we have a large amount of agreement, but we have a difference of 
judgment on what is best for the country.
  I would say to all Members: We are about to do our job, and that is 
vote up or down on legislation that would allow General Mattis to 
serve.
  Now, we are not irrelevant, because if we don't vote for this 
legislation, he does not serve. That is what Members are elected to do: 
to vote. We are about to vote, and we have essentially two choices.
  Mr. Speaker, as I made clear, I share many of the concerns about the 
process, about some of the decisions that the transition team made. 
There has been a lot of discussion about this setting a poor precedent; 
but, actually, there is only one precedent before us. That was 1950 
with General Marshall. And General Marshall himself did not testify in 
front of the House or the Senate on the waiver legislation.
  It was only after the waiver legislation was signed into law that 
General Marshall came to testify in front of the Senate for his 
confirmation hearing. But there is nothing that is different from what 
we are doing today from the only precedent that exists. So the notion 
that we are suddenly irrelevant, that we are harming the House, et 
cetera, I believe is mistaken.
  I hope that we do not have a national security crisis on January 21 
or 22, but the fact is, unless we pass this bill today, we are not able 
to have a Secretary of Defense on January 20. I think, given the state 
of the world and given a number of other factors, it is important that 
we do so.

                              {time}  1500

  Just two other brief points, Mr. Speaker.
  The press is reporting that the White House has indicated that 
President Obama will sign this legislation. I hope he does. That would 
ensure that General Mattis, if confirmed by the Senate on January 20, 
will go ahead and be sworn in and take office at that point.
  There are, as I have said, many concerns about how this was handled--
the wording, et cetera. The bottom line, as some of my colleagues have 
mentioned, is that there are men and women who have volunteered to 
serve our Nation even at the risk of their own lives. There are 
Americans throughout the country who depend on those men and women to 
keep them safe and secure. All of them deserve to have a Secretary of 
Defense who is fully functional on day one of the administration. The 
only way that happens is to vote ``yes.'' I urge my colleagues to do 
so.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on this piece of legislation 
before us that would provide a waiver for the appointment of Mr. Jim 
Mattis to serve as Secretary of Defense. I've listened to and respect 
much of the conversation here today from my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle. However, much of it is repetitive from a process 
standpoint. Nothing I've heard so far says that the commander in chief 
will not be president of the United States, so the ultimate civilian 
leadership rests with the commander and chief. He then hires someone 
with the advice and consent of the Senate to be the Secretary of 
Defense. I don't know what's magic about the requirement to wait for 
seven years. I've heard nothing during this process conversation on the 
floor today that says anyone needs a seven year detox [detoxification] 
program to shed themselves of all the nasty vices you get while serving 
in the military. We've got a general officer sitting on the front row 
of the Armed Services Committee; we've got a colonel sitting on the 
second row of the Armed Services Committee to name just a few, and no 
one would remotely suggest that they are more loyal to the military 
than they are loyal to the constituents they represent back home. So, I 
ask, why is five years not an appropriate length of time for a detox 
program? Why is three years not appropriate? Clearly, no one is going 
to put a uniformed officer in the position of Secretary of Defense. So 
as we think about the appropriate amount of time for a nominee to 
Secretary of Defense to have been out of the military, I've not heard 
the psychology behind or scientific evidence to say seven years is 
somehow a magic length of time.
  Mr. Mattis has been out of the military for four years and I'm quite 
comfortable saying that he is going to be more respectful of the 
civilian as he approaches the job than his previous service as a 
military man. The conversation and debate has been high-minded and 
respectful and I appreciate that, but this is going to be a party-line 
vote. And unfortunately, you are going to send the next Secretary of 
Defense into his role to lead every man and woman in uniform with a 
split vote between the majority and minority. That does not send a very 
good message. I can assure you those young sergeants and E-4s and E-3s 
out there that are going to be asked to follow the instruction of the 
civilian leadership will be much more impressed if it was a unanimous 
vote for Mr. Mattis. So however you couch your language, I'm voting for 
Mr. Mattis to be Secretary of Defense today. My vote on this bill will 
be for Mr. Mattis to be Secretary of Defense. The process discussed now 
by my colleagues, I understand. You can make those arguments and you 
have done that very well--and I respect that. But, for me and my vote, 
it will be for Mr. Mattis to be Secretary of Defense.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I am deeply troubled by the majority's 
action this week in capitulating to the President-elect's transition 
team to deny the House the opportunity to hear from the esteemed 
nominee for Secretary of Defense, General James Mattis.
  To eliminate the opportunity for the chamber closest to the American 
citizens, the People's House, to have a full dialogue in advance of 
changing a law paramount to the civilian control of the Defense 
Department is troubling. Rolling over a Congressional Chamber to 
expedite a waiver that has only happened once before denigrates the 
responsibilities of our representative democracy.
  General James Mattis--has served our nation and the U.S. Marine Corps 
with distinction in war and peace. He has earned the moniker ``warrior-
monk-intellectual'' for his devotion to his soldiers, the library of 
widely ranging books he carries with him, and his lifetime devotion to 
the study of war.
  To politicize the nomination of a great General rather than allow 
Congress the proper procedure to deliberate his talent and experience 
is a blemish to liberty.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, today, I will vote against S. 84, the 
bill to exempt retired Marine Gen. James N. Mattis from the prohibition 
on individuals who have spent less than seven years out of uniform for 
appointment as Secretary of Defense. Even though he is qualified and 
probably the best appointee we could expect from the Trump 
administration, there is a reason for the law that requires a waiver. 
This issue should have been addressed more directly.
  Civilian control of the Armed Forces is a critical cornerstone of our 
democracy. Regardless of the individual under consideration for such a 
waiver, a major departure from longstanding law merits a full 
conversation and discussion in Congress. I am concerned by reports that 
the Trump presidential transition team prevented Gen. Mattis from 
testifying before the House Armed Services Committee, though he was 
willing.
  It's unfortunate that both chambers did not have the opportunity to 
hear from Gen. Mattis. I suspect that if the process were allowed to 
work, he may well have received stronger bipartisan support for the 
waiver.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 48, the previous question is ordered.
  The question is on the third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be read a third time, and was read the third 
time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________